On 3 December 2014 at 10:31, Martin Panter <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Jean
>
> On 3 December 2014 at 09:28, Jean Delvare <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Le Wednesday 17 September 2014 à 22:38 +0000, Martin Panter a écrit :
>>> > On 17/09/2014, Aristeu Rozanski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> > > The next step, my usual "quilt push -f" didn't quite did the expected,
>>> > > it just ran patch without -f and patch just thought it was a full revert
>>> > > based on the first hunk. Now I understand that "quilt push -f -q" will
>>> > > make quilt use "-f" for patch, but here's the problem: using quilt push
>>> > > without -q is supposed to be "interactive" except it isn't after the
>>> > > color output support:
>>> > > . . .
>>> >
>>> > I found this behaviour annoying when I used to use Quilt a long time
>>> > ago (possibly even before colour output support?).
>>>
>>> . . . Your patch being dated 23 Sep 2009, I guess you
>>> wrote it long after color support was added.
>
> You are probably right; either way it was a long time ago :)
>
>>> > > 1) could simply use -f for patch always, and have -q still
>>> > > useful to supress further messages
>
> [Old patch snipped]
>
>>> Applying something like your patch would mean that there no longer is a
>>> way to apply patches interactively. But well, as you demonstrated, there
>>> hasn't been a way to actually do that since January 2005 and I can't
>>> remember hearing any complaint about that, so I suppose this is
>>> acceptable.
>>> (...)
>>> For now I would go with option #1, for the reason that it's the most
>>> simple one and it sticks to (and finally documents) the way quilt has
>>> worked for the past 9 years. Anyone who needs more will have to come up
>>> with the code required to make it fly.
>>>
>>> Martin, Aristeu, can any of you please submit a patch implementing
>>> option #1 that properly applies on top of the most recent version of
>>> quilt? Thanks.
>>
>> I would like to get this fixed now as I just hit the bug once again and
>> it pissed me off. Do you have an updated patch ready, or should I do it
>> myself?
The following patch is against the current master branch. I did a
quick artificial test and it seems to do the job (quilt push -f now
does what quilt push -f -q used to do).
From 2926121cc5cca7c6b45c10df7b9abd87e7c6ea50 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Martin Panter <vadmium à gmail·com>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 18:20:30 +1000
Subject: [PATCH] =?UTF-8?q?Do=20not=20use=20interactive=20mode=20with=20?=
=?UTF-8?q?=E2=80=9Cquilt=20push=20-f=E2=80=9D?=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Now the "patch -f" option is always used.
---
quilt/push.in | 7 ++-----
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/quilt/push.in b/quilt/push.in
index 366cc9b..e10fa76 100644
--- a/quilt/push.in
+++ b/quilt/push.in
@@ -36,8 +36,7 @@ be used.
-q Quiet operation.
--f Force apply, even if the patch has rejects. Unless in quiet mode,
- apply the patch interactively: the patch utility may ask questions.
+-f Force apply, even if the patch has rejects.
-v Verbose operation.
@@ -121,7 +120,7 @@ apply_patch()
[ -s "$patch_file" ] || return 0
set -- patch $QUILT_PATCH_OPTS $(push_patch_args "$patch") \
- --backup --prefix="$QUILT_PC/$patch/" \
+ --backup --prefix="$QUILT_PC/$patch/" -f \
$no_reject_files $more_patch_args
if [ "${patch_file:(-3)}" = ".gz" ]
@@ -394,8 +393,6 @@ stop_at_patch=$(find_unapplied_patch
"$stop_at_patch") || exit
more_patch_args=
[ -n "$opt_quiet" ] && more_patch_args="$more_patch_args -s"
-[ -z "$opt_force" -o -n "$opt_quiet" ] &&
- more_patch_args="$more_patch_args -f"
if [ -n "$opt_merge" ]
then
more_patch_args="$more_patch_args --merge$opt_merge_arg"
--
2.1.0
_______________________________________________
Quilt-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/quilt-dev
